Signs and Wonders: GOP going soft on marriage?

Newsworthy | Warren Cole Smith

Sen. Rob Portman, R-OhioAssociated Press/Photo by Mark Duncan (file)

Portman’s unintended cruelty. You may have heard that Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio has changed his position on homosexual “marriage.” He now says he’s for it, adding that a major reason for his change of heart is his 21-year-old son Will is gay. I served for several years on the board of a ministry that helps men struggling with same-sex attractions. I discovered then that family members often accept their son’s unhealthy, self-destructive choice of homosexuality because it is easier than walking with a gender-confused boy on the tough road out of that lifestyle. Worse, they fool themselves into thinking that by enabling their boys they are showing, as Portman told CNN, “love, support.” But, as a Christian worldview teaches, encouraging someone to break God’s law is to engage in cruelty, not compassion. God defines love. Hanging the word “love” on a counterfeit does not make it authentic.

Assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday in a vote along party lines. No drama in the that, but the debate before the vote was lively. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., locked horns with Ted Cruz, a freshman Republican from Texas. Cruz (who media reports repeatedly describe as a “Tea Party partisan”) asked, “Would [Feinstein] consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” It’s a good question. Once you start banning things that the constitution says shouldn’t be banned, where do you stop? Rather than answer the question, Feinstein said, “I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years, I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it. … So, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time.” Neither did Feinstein comment on the .38 special she once carried when she received death threats in the 1970s. I guess it’s OK for liberal elites to protect themselves, just not the rest of us.

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.(It’s quick and painless, we promise!)

Already a Member? Sign in here:

CPAC packing ’em in. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is underway just outside Washington, minus GOProud, the pro-homosexual wing of the Republican Party. In 2011, because of the group’s involvement, several prominent organizations, including The Heritage Foundation, decided to boycott CPAC (though Heritage bristled at the use of the word “boycott.”) The good news is that because of the strong stand by Heritage leaders, they’re back and GOProud is gone. The bad news is that the Republican Party is timid when it comes to declaring how destructive homosexuality has been and continues to be to America. In addition to Rob Portman’s collapse, noted above, Rand Paul and even Marco Rubio have lost their voices on the issue. If Republicans move to the left on this issue, they’ll pick up some moderate voters (perhaps), but they’ll lose the support of many more conservatives who provide the enthusiasm (which means money and volunteers) the party can’t live without.

Mandate milestone. The CEO of an electric company in Florida has filed the 50th suit against the Department of Health and Human Services over the healthcare insurance contraceptive mandate. Thomas Beckwith, CEO of Beckwith Electric of Largo, Fla., filed the suit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The Thomas More Law Center represents him in the suit. “This is a case about religious freedom,” reads the 48-page suit. “The mandate forces employers and individuals to violate their religious beliefs because it requires employers and individuals to pay for and provide insurance from insurance issuers which fund and directly provide for drugs, devices, and services which violate their deeply held religious beliefs.”